Presidential Election
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee
Presidential Election
Who are you going to vote for? Lets see if we can predict the actual winner.
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
benissimus wrote:Can we get some better choices?
p.s. Why is Alfred E. Newman running under the alias George W. Bush?
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee
Lets see....benissimus wrote:Can we get some better choices?
John Wayne - Dead
Ronald Reagan - Dead
Charleton Heston - Possibility
Rhuiden - Unelectable (too opinionated and too practical)
Rush - Doesn't want to take a pay cut
Neal Boortz - Good on economic and defense issues, weak on social issues
Zell Miller - Possibility
PeterD - can't run (Canadian)
Jesse Jackson - lets get serious
Alan Keys - Possibility
Arnold - not eligible (not born in US)
Ted Kennedy - too drunk
Hilary - hahahahahahahaha.....
How about these? Would any of these be better?
Rhuiden
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Rhuiden wrote:Lets see....benissimus wrote:Can we get some better choices?
PeterD - can't run (Canadian)
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07 am
- Location: Geneva, Switzerland
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07 am
- Location: Geneva, Switzerland
World elections prior to November 2nd:
France Parliamentary(Senate) Sept 28,2004
Slovenia Parliamentary Oct 3,2004
Afghanistan Presidential Oct 9,2004
Australia Parliamentary Oct 9,2004
Lithuania Parliamentary Oct 10,2004
Cameroon Presidential Oct 11,2004
Belarus Parliamentary Oct 17,2004
Belarus Referendum Oct 17,2004
Ireland Presidential Oct 22,2004
Kosovo Parliamentary Oct 23,2004
Tunisia Presidential Oct 24,2004
Tunisia Parliamentary Oct 24,2004
Botswana Parliametary Oct 30,2004
Ukraine Presidential Oct 31, 2004
Uruguay Presidential(First Round) Oct 31,2004
Uruguay Legislative Oct 31,2004
Palau Presidential Nov 2,2004
Palau Legislative Nov 2,2004
Why don't we talk about one of these?
jc
France Parliamentary(Senate) Sept 28,2004
Slovenia Parliamentary Oct 3,2004
Afghanistan Presidential Oct 9,2004
Australia Parliamentary Oct 9,2004
Lithuania Parliamentary Oct 10,2004
Cameroon Presidential Oct 11,2004
Belarus Parliamentary Oct 17,2004
Belarus Referendum Oct 17,2004
Ireland Presidential Oct 22,2004
Kosovo Parliamentary Oct 23,2004
Tunisia Presidential Oct 24,2004
Tunisia Parliamentary Oct 24,2004
Botswana Parliametary Oct 30,2004
Ukraine Presidential Oct 31, 2004
Uruguay Presidential(First Round) Oct 31,2004
Uruguay Legislative Oct 31,2004
Palau Presidential Nov 2,2004
Palau Legislative Nov 2,2004
Why don't we talk about one of these?
jc
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: CA, USA
Oh, I would love to discuss something else, it's getting quite boring hearing the same rhetoric day after day: "You flip-flopper!" "You Coward!" Those wacky Americans sure know how to throw some insults...Lupus minimus wrote:World elections prior to November 2nd:
France Parliamentary(Senate) Sept 28,2004
Slovenia Parliamentary Oct 3,2004
Afghanistan Presidential Oct 9,2004
Australia Parliamentary Oct 9,2004
Lithuania Parliamentary Oct 10,2004
Cameroon Presidential Oct 11,2004
Belarus Parliamentary Oct 17,2004
Belarus Referendum Oct 17,2004
Ireland Presidential Oct 22,2004
Kosovo Parliamentary Oct 23,2004
Tunisia Presidential Oct 24,2004
Tunisia Parliamentary Oct 24,2004
Botswana Parliametary Oct 30,2004
Ukraine Presidential Oct 31, 2004
Uruguay Presidential(First Round) Oct 31,2004
Uruguay Legislative Oct 31,2004
Palau Presidential Nov 2,2004
Palau Legislative Nov 2,2004
Why don't we talk about one of these?
jc
Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: London
yeah, or we could talk about the outcome of the Sachsen election:
conservatives down 15.8% to 41.1%
communists (former dictatorship party) up 1.4% to 23.6%
labour party down 0.9% to 9.8%
green party up 2.5% to 5.1%
Neo Nazis up 7.8% to 9.2%
liberals up 4.8% to 5.9%
the sharp rise in votes for the Neo-Nazis would be worth discussing.
conservatives down 15.8% to 41.1%
communists (former dictatorship party) up 1.4% to 23.6%
labour party down 0.9% to 9.8%
green party up 2.5% to 5.1%
Neo Nazis up 7.8% to 9.2%
liberals up 4.8% to 5.9%
the sharp rise in votes for the Neo-Nazis would be worth discussing.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07 am
- Location: Geneva, Switzerland
I do think the Afghani elections, if not so much the result, but rather the process is of significant import. First case of U.S. "nation-building/democratisation" since the onset of the GWOT (global war on terror).cicerosum wrote:Lupus minimus wrote:World elections prior to November 2nd:
...
Afghanistan...
Australia...
...
Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
And how can you be so insulting to our Australian friends? Anyway, would a defeat of Howard imply a withdrawal of Ossie troups from Iraq?
Anyway, my opininion on Nov 2. U.S. is that whoever wins, Iraq is F&/ç*D. Since this will be the hottest international topic for the next few years, what's the difference who wins?
jc
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: CA, USA
It's good that you are so optimistic.Lupus minimus wrote:
I do think the Afghani elections, if not so much the result, but rather the process is of significant import. First case of U.S. "nation-building/democratisation" since the onset of the GWOT (global war on terror).
One can only hope.Lupus minimus wrote: Anyway, would a defeat of Howard imply a withdrawal of Ossie troups from Iraq?
Precisely! Democrats, Republicans, why--even wonderboy Nader and his acceptance of contributions from certain right-wing anti-gay groups!--they're all feeding from the same filthy trough.Lupus minimus wrote:Since this will be the hottest international topic for the next few years, what's the difference who wins?
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
It's 18.Steven you're old enough to vote right? Or is it 21...anyway if you can vote for Kerry for me. Thanks for the favour.
Why do you say that? Last time I checked, everybody said it was terrorists.Who the hell keeps voting for Bush? He blew up your twin towers!
You don't think it's possible for it to be both A and B?Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
One final thing: Even if Kerry wins, he won't take the troops out of Iraq the next day. It will be months, at least.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: CA, USA
My point exactly. A and B are essentially the same thing.Dacicus wrote:You don't think it's possible for it to be both A and B?Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
- klewlis
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: CA, USA
Hmm. To make things simpler for those who take all things literally...
American Empire. It stays the same. It continues to oppress regardless of who wins the election. Either Bush wins, things trudge on as they are or Kerry wins and things trudge on as they are (although we re-enter the Kyoto Protocol). Either way, the empire will conquer (Iraq) and continue to flourish. And those of us here will remain under the chains of the tyranny of the majority. The rest of you just get the chains and some scraps shoved under the table. Bon Appetit!
American Empire. It stays the same. It continues to oppress regardless of who wins the election. Either Bush wins, things trudge on as they are or Kerry wins and things trudge on as they are (although we re-enter the Kyoto Protocol). Either way, the empire will conquer (Iraq) and continue to flourish. And those of us here will remain under the chains of the tyranny of the majority. The rest of you just get the chains and some scraps shoved under the table. Bon Appetit!
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: CA, USA
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
[qoute]conquering is the same as flourishing? [/qoute]
sometimes, not always. This time the latter.
sometimes, not always. This time the latter.
Not according to Michael Moore it ain't. ;PWhy do you say that? Last time I checked, everybody said it was terrorists.
Quite a dark statement, isn't it? But I think we oughta enjoy what we can.Either way, the empire will conquer (Iraq) and continue to flourish. And those of us here will remain under the chains of the tyranny of the majority. The rest of you just get the chains and some scraps shoved under the table. Bon Appetit!
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
I think that you are as wrong as you are with your latin Dacicus. The evidence is overwhelming, not from Michael Moore as he has turned into an unreliable source somewhat due to his now infamous bias and hatred of Bush, but from a neutral documentary programme on good old UK tv showing bush and his reaction. How he planned it. But 1 month before the attack they took out insurance on the towers. That is odd. And the way in which he was informed so quickly then continued to read to the little kids, perhaps he was exerting himself entirely I do not know, but it was obviously planned and known beforehand. One can tell. Oooh surprise. I think not.
- klewlis
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
When I first read your comment I smiled and thought:"There is our bishop again, shooting from the lip", but I find it disturbing that you meant it.Episcopus wrote:I think that you are as wrong as you are with your latin Dacicus. The evidence is overwhelming, not from Michael Moore as he has turned into an unreliable source somewhat due to his now infamous bias and hatred of Bush, but from a neutral documentary programme on good old UK tv showing bush and his reaction. How he planned it. But 1 month before the attack they took out insurance on the towers. That is odd. And the way in which he was informed so quickly then continued to read to the little kids, perhaps he was exerting himself entirely I do not know, but it was obviously planned and known beforehand. One can tell. Oooh surprise. I think not.
Maybe the mayor of NY at that time blew up the towers. After all he gained great popularity after 9/11. Or here's a thought; It was the Canadians, they wanted Bush to look Bad.
Or we could just take Bin Laden's words at face-value.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
If Latham wins, about half of the Australian troops will be removed, with remainder being officially there to protect Australian civilians.Lupus minimus wrote:And how can you be so insulting to our Australian friends? Anyway, would a defeat of Howard imply a withdrawal of Ossie troups from Iraq?
The election's either all over or to close to call, depending on who you listen to.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Nader has picked up a vote.
Who is this smart fellow who has the testicular fortitude to think with his big head and cast the sole Nader vote
Hmmm...I wonder.
Who is this smart fellow who has the testicular fortitude to think with his big head and cast the sole Nader vote
Hmmm...I wonder.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
Here's a quote from another forum I visit:
9/11 Conspiracy article from Wikipedia
I think the author made a good point when he said that. So which one do you guys think it is: stupid or scheming mastermind.Another thing that bothers me is that so many people used to bash Bush for being stupid and not smart enough to run the country. Now all of a sudden he is this scheming mastermind capable of manipulating an entire nation.
9/11 Conspiracy article from Wikipedia
- klewlis
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
- Contact:
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: London
I don't believe Bush planned those attacks, to think that is not ridiculous, everything is possible, if it was planned it would have been his advisors and Bush just would have nodded. I don't believe though that they planned it or that Bush would have given his consent, but I have no proof of the opposite, I just don't think it likely. But it is very likely that they had some indications of a planned attack, it's proven that there were many hints, but nothing happened. Bin Laden was also offered to the US by Syrian (think it was Syria at least , hate my useless memory ) before the attacks, but apparently the CIA didn't want to cooperate with the Syrian intelligence agency. That just shows how useless the CIA is and how all of this combined just had to lead to terrorists being able to carry out such attacks.
There had been plans drawn up to attack Iraq before September the 11th I've heard. That doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't mean that they wanted to blow up the World Trade centre to declare war on Iraq, planning the war was a hobby and they were probably surprised but also very glad to have found the opportunity to attack Iraq, even though Iraq of course had nothing to do with terrorists or weapons of mass destruction.
The thing is that probably nothing much will change on a great scale is Kerry is elected, but what it will do is at least show the world that the US people do care, that they won't re-elect a president who lead an unjust war. If Bush wins that means that the American people agree with him, and America will totally loose the respect of any who still have some for the country.
There had been plans drawn up to attack Iraq before September the 11th I've heard. That doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't mean that they wanted to blow up the World Trade centre to declare war on Iraq, planning the war was a hobby and they were probably surprised but also very glad to have found the opportunity to attack Iraq, even though Iraq of course had nothing to do with terrorists or weapons of mass destruction.
The thing is that probably nothing much will change on a great scale is Kerry is elected, but what it will do is at least show the world that the US people do care, that they won't re-elect a president who lead an unjust war. If Bush wins that means that the American people agree with him, and America will totally loose the respect of any who still have some for the country.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Hmmm...stupid or scheming mastermind?Dacicus wrote:Here's a quote from another forum I visit:I think the author made a good point when he said that. So which one do you guys think it is: stupid or scheming mastermind.Another thing that bothers me is that so many people used to bash Bush for being stupid and not smart enough to run the country. Now all of a sudden he is this scheming mastermind capable of manipulating an entire nation.
9/11 Conspiracy article from Wikipedia
Let's look at a few random Bush thoughts or quotes that have come our way before we decide:
- "We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end."
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself but for my predecessors as well."
"We're in for a long struggle and I think Texans understand that. And so do Americans."
"Sometimes when I sleep at night I think of 'Hop on Pop."
"I understand small business growth. I was one."
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
~PeterD
p.s. America, thanks for the laughs.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: London
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
I've heard that we didn't have enough evidence against him to try him in an U.S. court.Emma_85 wrote:Bin Laden was also offered to the US by Syrian (think it was Syria at least , hate my useless memory :? ) before the attacks, but apparently the CIA didn't want to cooperate with the Syrian intelligence agency. That just shows how useless the CIA is and how all of this combined just had to lead to terrorists being able to carry out such attacks.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:54 pm
- Location: Somewhere far, far away
Eh, politics. Who understands?
Me, I agree with whoever said that Bush didn't coordinate the attacks but DID disgustingly take advantage of it. But then, everybody did...
I certainly don't LIKE Bush, but I don't trust Kerry either. He might noisy about Bush's mistakes and all that crap, but he's not going to take any steps to reverse what Bush has already done.
Me, I agree with whoever said that Bush didn't coordinate the attacks but DID disgustingly take advantage of it. But then, everybody did...
I certainly don't LIKE Bush, but I don't trust Kerry either. He might noisy about Bush's mistakes and all that crap, but he's not going to take any steps to reverse what Bush has already done.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:48 pm
- Location: Green Bay,WI
If memory serves, Clinton had the option of taking out several of the most wanted terrorist leaders (agencies were in place a waiting the go ahead) but not wanting to interrupt his golf game or the economy never ordered the strikes.
Also to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks just because he benifited from them is equatted to saying he caused the hurricanes in Florida so he could rescue the people and win votes. It is the job of the president to act in the face of a national emergency, andd it would only be a bad presidennt that doesn't benefit from a national crisis.
Also to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks just because he benifited from them is equatted to saying he caused the hurricanes in Florida so he could rescue the people and win votes. It is the job of the president to act in the face of a national emergency, andd it would only be a bad presidennt that doesn't benefit from a national crisis.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
- Location: Baltimore
Is this just rhetoric or do you believe you remember this happening?Mongoose42 wrote:If memory serves, Clinton had the option of taking out several of the most wanted terrorist leaders (agencies were in place a waiting the go ahead) but not wanting to interrupt his golf game or the economy never ordered the strikes.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:48 pm
- Location: Green Bay,WI
It is more than just rhetoric, the information came from the book Dereliction of Duty by the soldier that was near Clinton at all times because his job was to carry the breifcase with all the nuke launch codes.
All presidents can be attacked for their policy decisions, but the truth is all presidents do their job and the basis of American and apparently global politics is that no president will ever satisfy all opponents or avoid all rumors.
All presidents can be attacked for their policy decisions, but the truth is all presidents do their job and the basis of American and apparently global politics is that no president will ever satisfy all opponents or avoid all rumors.